The Babylon Connection?

This book isn't as good as it should be, but it will do. I give him five stars, partly for content, but mostly for the guts to refute his own earlier book. He was willing to take financial loss for the sake of doing what was right. However, I also give this five stars for sticking a bur in the saddle of all those people who love Hislop's book (who ignorantly assert that Woodrow has given in to the Catholic Church, been deceived, or some such - utterly neglecting his criticism of it in the last chapter). Content quality of the book only rates three stars, for not going as far in dismantling Hislop as one could. It is long on critique of Hislop's argumentation, but more could be done. It is also long on critique of Hislop's history. Again, more could be done. His analysis of Hislop's overreaching in equating one pagan deity with a long litany of others is completely valid. But he neglects that neighboring cultures would sometimes adopt aspects of a particular deity to one of their own. This was also true between conquerors and the conquered. That said, it may be true that two different cultures have gods of fertility; yet this does not make them the same diety. It merely means that in each culture there is a god who has that substance under his control and patronage. The god Frey is not the same as the goddess Aphrodite, though they share some similar responsibilities. Woodrow does a fair job showing the problem Hislop's reasoning leads to when applied to Christianity. He could well have taken this argument much further regarding New Testament Christianity. He could have done even more with respect to Old Testament Judaism, if only he'd been more aware of Canaanite religion. [What? Our God uses the same titles as a pagan god for Himself? Yes. And He uses a temple, animal, grain, and wine sacrifices, washings, anointing, a lunar calendar, harvest celebrations, etc., even though the pagans already use these? Yes.] He also fails to show how much of what Protestants condemn in Catholicism is deeply connected to Jewish culture; or what Luther and Calvin still held in common with Catholics, which Zwinglian and Anabaptist off-shoots reject. But his objective remains to refute the Hislop's pile of hooey, not to defend Catholicism. Overall, his criticisms of Hislop could be much, much more devastating. Woodrow's critique of Catholicism is just one chapter, and (as a reviewing Catholic pointed out) lacks some depth in understanding on particular issues. However, it still puts on the table some of the concerns Protestants have about Catholicism. Those who think Woodrow missed the point that the Catholic Church did all these conversions of pagan practices over to Christianity miss the point of Woodrow's book. That said, they also seem to have missed at least the first four centuries of Christian history, from the writings of the early fathers, to the prayers written in the Catacombs. Hot button issues like the persecution of Protestants also have nothing t

Marcus Garvey said a people without knowledge of their history is like a tree without roots. The same is true for people who believe FALSE histories like the ones presented in Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons" & Ralph Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion"; people who believe such false histories are like a house built on sand. As a previous reviewer said, it takes a very honest, very humble, and very courageous man to not only admit his mistakes, but publicly refute them. This book proves Woodrow's honesty, humility, and courage. I do hope, like that earlier reviewer, that this brave effort will inspire other pseudo-historians to get on the right track. After reading this book, readers should begin to read the actual writings of ancient Christians directly. Start with "Early Christian Writings" translated by Andrew Louth and published by Penguin (ISBN: 0140444750). Be sure to check out "On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei" by Athanasius of Alexandria (ISBN: 0913836400). Secondary literature should include "Early Christian Doctrines" by J.N.D. Kelly (ISBN: 006064334X), "The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy" by C. Fitzsimons Allison (ISBN: 0819215139), "Reading Scripture With the Church Fathers" by Christopher A. Hall (ISBN: 0830815007), "Learning Theology With the Church Fathers" by Christopher A. Hall (ISBN: 0830826866), and the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" series.

It takes a very honest, very humble man to not only admit his mistakes, but publicly refute them. We can only hope that this brave effort will inspire other pseudo-historians to get on the right track.Comparable, in many ways, to McGoldrick's _Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History_.

Kudos to the author for his honesty and willingness to suffer financial loss from the sale of his earlier work. This book should be spread far and wide.

Years ago as a Protestant, I read Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion" and many works based on it or its predecesor, "The Two Babyons." I accepted such conspiracy theories, which are popular in fundamentalist circles, since they made Rome look bad. I finally did something that fundamentalists rarely do; I started reading and actually thinking and it turned out that Woodrow's original conspiracy theory based on A. Hislop's nonsense held as much water as a bottomless bucket. Thankfully Woodrow has shown a level of interity truly rare among fundamentlalists by recanting his former views. His retractions and refutations of Hislop are devastating and especially persuasive considering the source. Woodrow, by his own admission has suffered financial loss by discontinuing his original "Babylon Mystery Religion." Sadly, many fundamentalists continue to use Woodrow's older work in their attacks on Rome. They do not wish to be confused with the facts since their minds are already made up. I highly recommend this work to fundamentalists to help them see the truth and to help them to think (which is difficult for them), and to Catholics for use in apologetics since fundamentalists (and cultists) still use these silly arguments about a Babylon connection.